Opinionpalooza: The Court of King Alito
1Digest
This episode of Amicus focuses on Justice Alito's recent errors in opinion writing, specifically his misinterpretation of data in the Alexander case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina. Alito cited the Brennan Center to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing, but the Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood their work and got it backwards. The Brennan Center actually showed that South Carolina has better data on racial identity than political affiliation, making racial data more useful for drawing maps. This episode also discusses Alito's tendency to substitute his own fact-finding in cases, as seen in the Thordel versus Jones case about a ban condemned to death on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Alito disagreed with the ninth circuit's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and substituted his own interpretation of the facts, highlighting the lack of error correction mechanisms in the Supreme Court. The episode concludes with a discussion of the implications of these errors, emphasizing the lack of a corrective mechanism in the Supreme Court and the potential for false information to become doctrine.
Outlines
Introduction
This Chapter introduces the episode and its focus on Justice Alito's recent errors in opinion writing, specifically his misinterpretation of data in the Alexander case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina.
Justice Alito's Errors in Opinion Writing
This Chapter delves into Justice Alito's recent errors in opinion writing, specifically his misinterpretation of data in the Alexander case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina. Alito cited the Brennan Center to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing, but the Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood their work and got it backwards. The Brennan Center actually showed that South Carolina has better data on racial identity than political affiliation, making racial data more useful for drawing maps.
Alito's Fact-Finding
This Chapter discusses Alito's tendency to substitute his own fact-finding in cases, as seen in the Thordel versus Jones case about a ban condemned to death on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Alito disagreed with the ninth circuit's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and substituted his own interpretation of the facts, highlighting the lack of error correction mechanisms in the Supreme Court.
Keywords
Justice Alito
Samuel Alito Jr. is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate on January 31, 2006. Alito is known for his conservative judicial philosophy and his rulings on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gun control. He is also known for his recent errors in opinion writing, specifically his misinterpretation of data in the Alexander case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina.
Alexander Case
The Alexander case, formally known as Alexander v. Arizona, is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of a South Carolina law that prohibits the use of race as a factor in drawing electoral districts. The case is significant because it raises important questions about the role of race in redistricting and the balance between racial equality and political representation. Justice Alito's misinterpretation of data in this case has been widely criticized.
Brennan Center
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to advance justice and democracy in America. The Brennan Center is known for its research and advocacy on issues such as voting rights, criminal justice reform, and campaign finance. In the Alexander case, the Brennan Center responded to Justice Alito's misinterpretation of their work, highlighting the importance of accurate data in legal decision-making.
Thordel v. Jones
Thordel v. Jones is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of a death sentence imposed on a defendant who was allegedly denied effective assistance of counsel. The case is significant because it raises important questions about the role of counsel in criminal proceedings and the right to a fair trial. Justice Alito's decision to substitute his own fact-finding in this case has been criticized for undermining the role of the lower courts and the importance of factual accuracy in legal decision-making.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States. It is composed of nine justices who are appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court has the power to review laws passed by Congress and the states, and to interpret the Constitution. The Court's decisions are binding on all lower courts in the United States. This episode highlights the lack of error correction mechanisms in the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the potential for false information to become doctrine.
Q&A
What specific errors has Justice Alito made in his recent opinion writing?
Justice Alito has made several errors in his recent opinion writing, including misinterpreting data in the Alexander case about racial gerrymandering in South Carolina and substituting his own fact-finding in the Thordel versus Jones case about a ban condemned to death on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
How did Justice Alito misinterpret data in the Alexander case?
In the Alexander case, Justice Alito cited the Brennan Center to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing, but the Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood their work and got it backwards. The Brennan Center actually showed that South Carolina has better data on racial identity than political affiliation, making racial data more useful for drawing maps.
What are the implications of Justice Alito's errors in opinion writing?
The implications of Justice Alito's errors in opinion writing are significant because they highlight the lack of error correction mechanisms in the Supreme Court. This means that false information can become doctrine, potentially impacting future legal decisions and interpretations of the law.
What is the significance of the Thordel versus Jones case?
The Thordel versus Jones case is significant because it raises important questions about the role of counsel in criminal proceedings and the right to a fair trial. Justice Alito's decision to substitute his own fact-finding in this case has been criticized for undermining the role of the lower courts and the importance of factual accuracy in legal decision-making.
Show Notes
Business as usual at the Supreme Court is the institutional response to the unusual business of Justice Samuel Alito’s letter writing about his flag-flying wife. In this bonus episode for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern knit together the yarns of jurisprudence with injudicious symbolic support for insurrection and christian nationalism - so you don’t get lost in this tangle. As the justices hand down cases and turn down congressional requests for recusal, Dahlia and Mark trace the link between bending the facts and discarding the record to suit Justice Alito’s narrative in his opinions, in his non application of the ethics code, and in his lack of humility in the flag fiasco.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Table of contents
United States
